MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021833642 · doi:10.1115/icone12-49103

Large-Break Loss-of-Coolant Accident Phenomena Identification and Ranking Table (PIRT) for the Advanced CANDU Reactor

2004· article· en· W2021833642 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venue12th International Conference on Nuclear Engineering, Volume 3 · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear Engineering Thermal-Hydraulics
Canadian institutionsAtomic Energy (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLoss-of-coolant accidentNuclear engineeringCoolantModular designLight-water reactorNatural uraniumEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceReliability engineeringEngineeringUraniumNuclear physicsMechanical engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Advanced CANDU Reactor (ACR™)* is an evolutionary advancement of the current CANDU 6® reactor, aimed at producing electrical power for a capital cost and unit-energy cost significantly less than that of current reactor designs. The ACR retains the modular concept of horizontal fuel channels surrounded by heavy water moderator, as with all CANDU reactors. However, ACR uses slightly enriched uranium (SEU) fuel, compared to the natural uranium used in CANDU 6. This achieves the twin goals of improved economics (e.g., via reductions in the heavy water requirements and the use of a light water coolant), as well as improved safety. This paper is focused on the double-ended guillotine critical inlet header break (CRIHB) loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) in an ACR reactor, which is considered as a large break LOCA. Large Break LOCA in water-cooled reactors has been used historically as a design basis event by regulators, and it has attracted a very large share of safety analysis and regulatory review. The LBLOCA event covers a wide range of system behaviours and fundamental phenomena. The Phenomena Identification and Ranking Table (PIRT) for LBLOCA therefore provides a good understanding of many of the safety characteristics of the ACR design. The paper outlines the design characteristics of the ACR reactor that impact the PIRT process and computer code applicability. It also describes the LOCA phenomena, lists all components and systems that have an important role during the event, discusses the PIRT process and results, and presents the final PIRT summary table.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.129
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it